We often say that implementing enterprise 2.0 is useless if it’s done in an 1.0. Said like this, even if “we” understand what it means, it’s still hard to get for many people.
That refers to enterprise models named according as two eras of the internet : one named 1.0 and the other 2.0. In practical terms it’s about opposing a top-down and directive model an emerging relying on the existence of an “invisible hand” that, in the same way as Adam’s Smith theory in economics, would make people personal actions and choices contribute to a collective purpose without the need of organizing anything.
Anyway, it’s an opposition between an out-of-breath dirigist model and harrowing one that means for businesses “it’s critical to your survival but you don’t have to do anything…just trust your employees and let them do what they decide to do”. In the same way that the economical word realized that Adam’s Smith’s invisible hand needed some guidance, the same conclusion is imposing upon businesses that can’t rely on serendipity to ensure their sustainability and success.
Here’s a quick comparison of “1.0”, “2.0” and “2.0 rationalized” adoption principles.
[table id=2 /]
Generally speaking it seems obvious that Serendipity and the Invisible hand, even if they can bring many benefits to excessively rigid organizations, aren’t viable business or organizational models alone.